I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the ongoing need to build a genuinely shared future; expresses concern at the ongoing and severe costs, both social and financial, of continued social and economic segregation; notes the value of increasing numbers of people now enjoying educational, sporting and career opportunities free from the confines of traditional community divisions; further recognises the need to expand these opportunities to the entire community, including by ensuring that public money is spent on delivery of public services that are open to all rather than on maintaining or further embedding division; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward a strategic framework for a shared future delivering public-sector reform to tackle the costs of division while building on good relations work already undertaken.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion.

In proposing the motion, I wish to be clear that it is, in many ways, a positive motion. Much of what I say will reflect on the significant progress that has been made in our society since the Good Friday Agreement, even if that has often been in spite of, rather than because of, the endless challenges that the political institutions that were founded by that agreement have had to endure. Indeed, in many ways, the argument that my colleagues and I will make today is that politics needs to catch up with society. As we plan our Programme for Government and Budget, we still need to think about the potential for a fourth pillar to add to the three of planet, people and prosperity that are in existence. We would like to see peace added to those.

The motion, which I hope will secure cross-party support, will require the First Minister and deputy First Minister to take forward the development of a shared future strategic framework. That would require each Department to develop and deliver its services and programmes in ways that ensure that they reflect the need to prioritise and promote peace and reconciliation and to meaningfully challenge and tackle the cost of division. Part of the story that we will set out today will be about great progress, great advance and great opportunity, and part of it will be about the ongoing scars in our society and the many communities that have not fully benefited from that progress. Those scars are sometimes literal in our built environment, most obviously in the form of the so-called peace walls that were all supposed to have been brought down by last year. However, we should not forget that the cost in lost progress and lost opportunity is borne not by infrastructure but by people.

A genuinely shared future, to be clear, is not a neutral future where we are afraid to express ourselves. On the contrary, it is one where people can express their cultural heritage with confidence and where we are not confined to one side of the sectarian fault line in seeking out opportunities to express ourselves. It is a future where the drummer in the band parade offers up an opportunity to play the drum to a young lad coming home from GAA training; it is one where Irish-language classes take place in inner city east Belfast; and it is one where the same person vies to play on the county panel in the summer and on the provincial team in the winter. The point is that all that already happens, and I firmly believe that it happens considerably more than it did. It is our shared present. We just need a lot more of it.

In many communities, however, segregation remains a way of life. Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) has been of value to many such communities, but it has at times, perhaps, been too programmatic, focusing on local interventions in areas that then become reliant on that short-term funding rather than on a strategic policy overview through public-sector delivery that would make the fundamental and necessary changes in how our society as a whole functions. For example, in my constituency, one of our local youth clubs has been advised that its budget will be severely reduced this year. We know that those are the very structures through which good relations work can be delivered, so, if we were to stop duplicating our services, that would free up money for long-term, front-line and sustained delivery.

We can quote the literal cost of segregation. As long ago as 2007, a Deloitte report put that cost at £1·5 billion. Certainly, no one seriously disputes that it runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. That is a financial cost. It effectively comes off money that, as I just said, could be spent on efficient public services, particularly in the areas that need them most. However, perhaps the bigger issue is the social cost. Those communities in which the fear of different identities and outlooks prevails are also the ones in which living standards and life expectancies tend to be lower, often markedly so. Overcoming that fear and embracing opportunity is not an easy task, but if it leads to communities that are more open to the opportunities offered by diversity, it will surely lead to communities that are happier, healthier and more prosperous.

We need to find ways to focus on the opportunities that would arise if we brought down the walls, both literal and metaphorical, that divide us. When we live with walls for generations, they inevitably become the norm, but we must never stop reinforcing the point that dividing communities with walls is abnormal. The peace monitoring report published in November 2023 notes that intercommunal violence is now extremely rare, so we have to address the fear that many people still live with. A strategic framework could help by delivering policy outcomes, for example by improving air quality and increasing levels of economic opportunity in urban areas, which would reduce fear by bringing communities together with common cause across walls. The strategic framework should sit with the First Minister and deputy First Minister because of their coordination role in cross-departmental outcomes and outworkings.

We must also confront the reality that there are still communities that live a pre-1998 existence, in single-identity areas, often, sadly, complete with paramilitary trappings, where children and young people continue even in 2024 to be exploited. Sadly, we saw that in Derry over Easter. The motion asks the Assembly, however, to confirm its determination that moving on from that type of existence everywhere is a good thing. We must no longer allow anywhere to settle for breeding fear and limiting future prospects. The mixing of our population and the growing presence of newcomers and their families have changed the face of Northern Ireland. Surveys show that it is widely recognised that they have done so for the better: with diversity comes opportunity.

The recent peace monitoring report makes it clear that the greatest growth in prejudice is not along sectarian lines but along racial lines. Race is now the most common basis of crime with hate motivation. Most people reported to the Northern Ireland life and times survey in 2022 that they felt that there is as much or more racial prejudice now than five years ago, yet our racial equality strategy — another case where there is a need for cross-departmental cooperation and collaboration — has not been fully implemented one year from its conclusion, and we remain the only part of the UK without a final refugee integration strategy.

There is learning not just from T:BUC but from the original 'A Shared Future' policy dating from 2005, which set as its objective:

“The establishment over time of a normal, civic society, in which all individuals are considered as equals, where differences are resolved through dialogue in the public sphere, and where all people are treated impartially” and thus of:

“A society where there is equity, respect for diversity and a recognition of our interdependence”.

That objective still holds true today, including for tackling all forms of prejudice and discrimination. That is why the motion calls specifically for a strategic framework. We want to see policies developed and delivered through co-design and in a cohesive way so that a commitment to a shared future free from prejudice while maximising opportunity is woven into everything our Executive parties do.

I hope that I have set out the many benefits to us all of building a shared future, overcoming segregation and ending prejudice, building on work already undertaken. Yet we still need the fourth pillar — planet, people, prosperity and peace. Therefore, I urge all Members to back the motion to replace a bitter, fearful and divided past with a reconciled, hopeful and shared future that is led by all our Executive Ministers under a strategic framework. Thank you.

I thank the Member for opening the debate, and I call Carál Ní Chuilín.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le Páirtí na Comhghuaillíochta as an rún thábhachtach seo a mholadh. Tacaím leis an rún.

[Translation: I thank the Alliance Party for tabling this important motion, which I support.]

There is a lot that we could say. In 10 minutes, you kept yourself to fairly confined words. First, we need to discuss a couple of things. This is the elephant in the room: there is still sectarianism out there. We agree on that. There is also a lot of focus on sectarianism, particularly in working-class and deprived areas. We recognise that, but we also need to deal with the middle-class sectarianism that has gone on for a long time.

I put on record my thanks to the many people who, throughout all sorts of years, have continued to show leadership in interfaces. I also want to talk about the elephant in the room, particularly when we are talking about tackling paramilitaries through Communities in Transition (CIT). In the area that I represent, it is armed criminal gangs. We need to call that out as well.

Do they still have the ability to coerce and control young people and cause sectarian problems? They absolutely do. Regrettably, I saw that as recently as a couple of weeks ago in North Belfast.

The children, young people and residents who are involved in youth work do it together. They may do single identity work, but, when it comes to evaluating and making sure that there are enough staff and diversionary youth workers, they do it together. That is greatly appreciated, and it is worth putting it on record. That occurs across the communities. I have seen it. Young people take risks when there is a lack of political leadership. They will continue to do that. We need to continue their funding at the very least. We all need to review what will happen to good relations or whatever.

There are also economic impacts. Without T:BUC, Communities in Transition (CIT) and the Engage programme, some young people in particular are extremely vulnerable and could get involved in the criminal justice system. From there, it goes on and on. It becomes intergenerational and harder to crack. What I have seen this past lot of years compared with what I saw in previous years is that people are doing this. They were doing co-design and co-production well before we were talking about it. As Paula said, communities are often ahead of us political leaders. They have been doing it for some time.

I want to mention North Belfast. Regrettably, we have an interface right through a park, but that has now opened up. I remember David Ford being there when it opened up, and, in fairness, he recognised the communities, but the communities were not recognised enough by officials then. It was the communities who took the risks. It was the communities who spoke to their neighbours, the youth groups and the mother-and-toddler groups, went to the libraries and worked really hard to get that done. They are doing the same thing in Girdwood, North Queen Street, Duncairn Gardens, the Limestone Road and Clifton Street. Unfortunately, there are about eight interfaces, but four of them are still particularly problematic. As Brian Kingston knows, they are problematic because a small cohort of young people are determined to cause trouble.

The overarching sense of a need for better funding for good relations is the elephant in the room. We need to mop up all of that in different Departments and give good leadership. We must say to those areas in particular, "We see you. We know who you are. We value you. We want to be productive in the change that comes forward, and we want to do it together. Above all else, we'll listen to you". I am delighted to say cúpla focal

[Translation: a few words]

about this issue. It is really important. The need for a bespoke service does not come from community relations or anybody else; it comes from the ground up. They have got it. Let us recognise that when we look at funding. We should not only congratulate them on their achievements thus far but make it easier for them to do that really hard work on our behalf.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It calls, first, on the House to recognise the ongoing need to build a genuinely shared future. Many of us in the Chamber have, for many years, been committed to playing our part in seeing a shared future become a reality. The DUP is focused on making Northern Ireland work for everyone. We are committed to a shared future and to playing our part in building it, provided that it acknowledges and caters for all of our communities and identities across Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, on occasion, the genuineness and sincerity of some in relation to a shared future ring hollow when it becomes apparent that their concept of a shared future seems to be to freeze out those with whom they disagree or those who do not fit their narrative. A genuine shared future must celebrate, acknowledge and cater for everyone. Community integration can be achieved only through natural permeation. It is a community that integrates. Whilst government can provide tools and mechanisms to support the creation and strengthening of social cohesion across traditional tribalism, it cannot engage in the business of integration itself, nor should it seek to force artificially contrived notions of integration on society. If we mean to be genuinely realistic around the subject and not bandy it about as a fashionable vote-winner, we need to acknowledge that a shared future does not equate to a one-size-fits-all policy.

Take education, for example: there is a reluctance by many to recognise that natural integration in the controlled sector, particularly the grammar sector, is just as favourable as that found in the integrated sector. Some would have us believe that integration does not happen outside of the integrated sector: that is an insult to the many schools across Northern Ireland that are often more integrated and diverse in their intake than many integrated schools.

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes, just a wee second. The idea that parental choice can be set aside in favour of one elevated sector is wrong. Go ahead.

Parental choice is not there for the parents who wish to send their children to integrated schools, because there are not any available for them. Does the Member agree that the schools that he has spoken about, which are integrated in nature, have nothing to fear in undergoing the true transformation to becoming an integrated school?

I thank the Member and welcome her intervention and comments.

I return to the wording of the motion, which acknowledges those who enjoy:

"educational, sporting and career opportunities free from the confines of ... community divisions"

And

"recognises the need to expand these opportunities to the entire community".

The motion intimates that there are some by whom such opportunities cannot be accessed. I am interested to know to whom and what that refers, given that we live in a free country and that individuals are at liberty to study where they wish, work where they wish and enjoy whatever leisure activities they wish. Similarly, they have the ability and opportunity to enjoy cultural and identity-based pursuits. The motion appears to cite the example of public services that are not open to all in justification of that argument. That is a very alarming inference to make. If that is believed to be the case, those making the inference should spell out what public services they are referring to and whether they have raised those inequalities with the Equality Commission.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Thank you for the opportunity. I thought that I had spelt quite a bit of it out, but an example is a new housing development in my constituency that went for shared housing funding and got turned down. There are practical examples of where funding has not been given when people wanted to progress good relations and a shared future.

The Member has an extra minute.

I welcome the Member's comments.

The key to building a sustainable and lasting shared future will not be found in attacking someone's freedom to choose, maintain and develop their identity. In recent decades, we have welcomed many thousands of migrants to the UK to work and live, bringing with them an eclectic array of cultures, religions and traditions. We call that "diversity", not "division". There should be no difference in how we view our domestic cultures. Our shared future can and should celebrate such diversity, as it is intrinsic to our identity.

As we continue to transition as a post-conflict society, there are undoubtedly areas in which needless financial and social segregation can and should be combated. That can be achieved with community buy-in through a bottom-up approach that achieves tangible results. We should focus on what we can do to build on the foundations already laid and what has been successful in the past in our future government-led initiatives —

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

— be that a revamp of urban villages or building successful community schemes.

While it is on my mind — before I forget — Carál Ní Chuilín made reference to "middle-class sectarianism", which is an important issue to be debated. I am not sure whether she has read John Hewitt's fabulous poem 'The Coasters', but, if she has, she will know that it speaks very much to her theme. I have a spare copy if she is interested.

I begin with our foundational document — the 1998 agreement — and quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of the declaration of support. Paragraph 2 talks about the "tragedies of the past" leaving:

"a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering" and the fact that "we must never forget" but:

"we can best honour ... through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all."

Paragraph 3 states that there is a commitment to "partnership, equality and mutual respect". Those concepts — partnership, equality and mutual respect — acknowledge the fact that we have different identities that we cherish. This is not about everybody jumping into the equivalent of a virtual blender and coming out the human form of beige. Republicans will be republicans, nationalists will be nationalists, unionists will be unionists, and those who do not want to be labelled as such will not be labelled as such. Without getting too far up on my hobby horse, if we are having a review of the agreement, we need to define what we mean by "reconciliation". We need to find another word to replace "tolerance", which, for me, is simply about the absence of hostility. It needs to be something a bit more positive. We need to find another term for "others", because that is demeaning to the Alliance Party, given its current level of support.

On division, I reported on far too much of the Troubles as a broadcast journalist. Politicians came in to bemoan the fact that we were a divided society. The one shining example of difference was the former leader of the SDLP John Hume, who talked not about division but about diversity. He talked about diversity being a strength and part of the human condition. That is what we need to focus on in this debate and in the work that we perform in the rest of the mandate.

The proposer of the motion talked about placing a duty on each Department to look at the issue. I would be more comfortable if it were an Executive-led initiative. My fear is that we might repeat what I consider to be mistakes from the previous mandate. We had, for example, an initiative from the Department for Communities on shared housing, but, at the same time, the Department of Education had an initiative on shared education. The problem was that, geographically, they were separate. Surely it would make much more sense if the shared housing were to surround the shared education campuses. I do think that it should be about having a son of the social investment fund, under which there was £40 million for dereliction and £40 million for deprivation. That was perceived too often to be an orange and green carve-up. We can learn from what we have done in the past and do it better in the future.

I have been here 13 years. I sense something different in the air. I sense a positivity that I have not really felt before. I sense a determination to deliver that I have not felt before. I sense possibilities that I have not felt before, possibilities to truly deliver for all our people by looking at this place that we all call "home" and respecting each other's differences and identities and finding many common causes. I am happy to support the thrust of the motion.

I and the SDLP will, of course, support today's motion, which I commend the Alliance Party for tabling.

I will make a few points about the motion and on the broad theme of reconciliation and moving our society away from division. The work of ending division is core to my party.

Mr Nesbitt mentioned our former leader. We in the SDLP sometimes talk about our former leader Mr Hume, and we are sometimes accused of talking about him too much. As a moral, intellectual and political North Star, he left us with, among other things, a belief that difference and diversity must not and should not become a source of division. Of course, we know that, in this part of Ireland, difference has been a source of division, and, sadly, it continues to be so. Our core mission is to end all the divisions in this place and on the island of Ireland in all the different ways they manifest.

When I returned to this place to become a politician four years ago, I had been away for nearly 20 years. I am part of the Good Friday Agreement generation. I am never entirely clear about when those generations begin or end, but I was 15 when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, and I am a middle-aged man now. I was away from the island for nearly 20 years. I returned regularly, but when I moved back here, I was struck by some of the individual, discrete bits of progress that had been made. I was proud to represent what is probably the most diverse, most shared constituency on this island — South Belfast. I was also struck by the many ways in which division continued to plague and define this society. We should be honest and direct about that, because sectarianism continues to be extraordinarily defining in this society. Sometimes, it is important not to minimise that and pretend that it does not exist.

Carál Ní Chuilín was right when she said that there is sometimes a tendency to pretend or imply that sectarianism is either something that them-uns do, but not us, or, indeed, that it is something that plagues or affects working-class communities and that others do not need to deal with it. That is simply not true.

Division is profound, deep and defining in this society, but what do we mean by a strategic framework for a shared future? We are happy to support the motion because it is important that this be a core priority for the new Executive, and I hope that agreement of the motion today means there will be specific commitments in the new Programme for Government around delivery.

I will touch briefly on something very disappointing in relation to building a shared future that has happened under the new dispensation, which is the cut to integrated education funding. The UK Government removed a ring fence, and that has affected 10 integrated and shared projects. In particular, 10 integrated schools that expected new schools to be built that will now not be built. It is important to say that although the UK Government removed the ring fence, that did not impose any duty on any Executive Minister to not spend the money. They could have put the ring fence back for those integrated schools, but they chose not to. I have answers to questions for written answer from both the Education Minister and the Finance Minister, who appear to say different things about when they were formally told that the shared and integrated education funding had been cut. What is clear is that it was known by mid-February, by both the Finance Department and the Education Department, that the funding was going to be cut, but the schools were not told until a week later.

In the interim, there was a visit by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Education Minister to a new shared education project in Limavady. It is a great project, and I do not in any way diminish its importance, but there are concerns about the timing of the announcement and the fact that Ministers appeared to know that the money was going to be cut from integrated schools but went along to dig ground at the Limavady shared education project. I say that because it is important, and the reason I made the point, and we will follow up on that, is that we need to be serious, specific and real about delivery when it comes to building a shared future and not simply indulge in photo ops.

Finally, as I have only 10 seconds left, all of us who have a constitutional aspiration, whether that is Northern Ireland remaining in the UK or a new Ireland, need to be able to explain how our vision for the future will involve ending division and building a reconciled society, and that is not impossible. I commend the motion. I am pleased to support it, and I hope that we see real delivery in a Programme for Government.

First, the motion is useful to assess where we are and where we are going. I thank the Alliance Party for tabling the motion.

I will touch specifically on a few elements and look at their practical impact in my constituency and at the space to develop and improve on them. Those are within the T:BUC strategy and around education and Urban Villages. The seven strands of T:BUC are funded by the Executive, and 30,000 young people, including a huge number from my constituency, have taken part in and benefited from them. From that, it is very clear, as all those young people have experienced, that, to move forward as a society, we need to tackle sectarianism, racism and other forms of intolerance that we see. Critically, as Carál mentioned, it is about doing that on the ground. At a policy level, we can support such action and bring forward strategies to benefit it, but it has to come organically from communities and be supported from the political side.

As a former teacher, most of my experience prior to coming here was in the education sector. I was privileged to teach in an integrated school — Oakgrove Integrated Primary School in Derry — and see its huge benefits to the community and how it worked practically, on a day-to-day basis, at breaking down barriers and divisions. That is very positive. We have seen hugely positive developments at the Strule campus, where there are 4,000 pupils, and, as Mr O'Toole mentioned, in Limavady. I welcome those examples as a positive step forward, but I recognise that there are huge steps that we need to continue to take.

We need to bank what is positive but also review what needs to change. That is critical. In addition the content of the motion, which Ms Bradshaw spoke very well to, there is space for us to do that. Importantly, in all of this, it is about us working collectively and continuing to have these conversations in a positive and constructive way to assess what is going well and what we need to change.

I come from an Urban Villages area: the Moor in Derry. There has been positive development there. In the Fountain, we have seen the New Gate Arts and Culture Centre, and we have seen the redevelopment of the city centre and the city walls. In the areas that I come from, we have seen the redevelopment of Meenan Square and of Central Drive in Creggan. One of the biggest things that has happened as a result of Urban Villages, which we need to continue bringing into other communities, is that, by tackling sectarianism and intolerance, we have managed to tackle some of the economic disparity across the North. Looking at the whole socio-economic piece around that is fundamental. I recognise and welcome that that is very much part of the motion.

The reality, however, is that, while we look at the benefits of all that, there are still peace walls up in that area. That has already been mentioned. We cannot stand still. I welcome the fact that the motion was tabled and will support it. This is a great opportunity for us to evaluate where we are and how to get to the stage of moving that into communities. I agree that communities are well ahead of us. I have spoken to a number of people in my own area and areas across the Moor who are very much willing to move to the next step and look at where we can go. This is about building relationships, reducing duplication of services and working together in Stormont and in our communities.

One element that we need to expand out to, which the motion does not really touch on, is tackling division not just within our communities but across our island. Being in a border constituency, one of the key reasons for the duplication of services that I see is the fact that we are divided across the island. I would like to continue to have conversations about that, collectively, and to develop that element.

I welcome the motion. I will support it. I look forward to working with the Alliance Party and others to develop the framework in the time ahead.

A shared future for the people of Northern Ireland is something that, I trust, we are all committed to in the Assembly. Indeed, that is a key theme of the Executive. For example, the Executive Office has programmes such as Together: Building a United Community, Urban Villages and Communities in Transition. It is also facilitated by many other Executive Departments, including the Department of Education, through the shared education initiatives that many schools participate in. The Department for Communities also facilitates that in the collaborative working that takes place between communities through programmes such as neighbourhood renewal.

The DUP recognises that a shared future does not mean trying to do away with personal, family and community identities. Rather, it means promoting tolerance. It means recognising this as a place that has a range of identities and recognising people's right to choose to associate or not to associate with any particular identity.

In education, we in the DUP respect parental choice and the fact that there is a number of sectors in our school system as a result. Those schools must be of a viable size in the interest of the public purse. It is not just schools in the integrated sector that have a diverse enrolment; in particular, many schools in the grammar sector and the controlled sector have diverse enrolments that go across a range of community and ethnic backgrounds.

Statutory services must be open and accessible to all, particularly lower-income families, who are more likely to be reliant on public services. Importantly, that does not mean that public services should not be located in areas that are predominantly associated with one side of the community in Northern Ireland. If public services were removed, such an approach could compound disadvantage by reducing the uptake of those services.

We in the DUP certainly support a shared future. We are committed to investing in and transforming our public services to ensure that they are accessible to everyone. However, we need an approach to the debate that is respectful and tolerant of the many national and cultural identities that exist in communities across Northern Ireland. Community engagement is central to building a shared and inclusive future. Without community buy-in, that transition is simply not feasible.

Passing motions in the Assembly can be very detached from the realities on the ground. Over many years, I have worked with community and elected representatives and statutory services in the greater Shankill and North Belfast to improve community relations and address periods of increased tension when there have been clashes and attacks as, sadly, has been the case recently. As Carál Ní Chuilín did, I pay tribute to those community and elected representatives and statutory services who work on those difficult issues and make a genuine difference at community level, particularly for those living in interface areas.

I am glad to speak on the motion today, particularly as it calls for the development of a cross-departmental shared future strategy. My and my party's vision of a shared future is one where everyone can be safe, play their part and be treated fairly and with respect. We believe in a society for everyone that is underpinned by our shared values of equality, respect, diversity and interdependence. People must be free from intimidation, discrimination and fear.

As well as the societal impact of division in a post-conflict society, there is also a huge financial cost. My colleague highlighted the Deloitte report from 2007, which estimated that the division was costing Northern Ireland between £800 million and £1·5 billion per year. Research that Ulster University produced last year estimated that, in the education system alone, the cost of division is £226 million per year, which is £600,000 every day. That is a staggering sum, but the issue is not just about the financial cost; it is about the societal impact that such division has on Northern Ireland as a whole.

I will highlight and come back to comments that were made about facilities and provisions not being open to all. It was shameful that previous Executives did not act on the fact that the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 does not apply to teachers. That is a clear and tangible example of where people could be discriminated against and have no legal protections. I welcome that Chris Lyttle, my former colleague in the Alliance Party, brought forward a private Member's Bill to address that, and I understand that that will come into force later this year. However, it is disappointing that Executives did not take that forward.

Significant change is needed to reduce the impact of division in our society. That cannot be the responsibility of one Department, which is why we call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead on a strategy to embed sharing, integration and cohesion across all Departments and public services. I recognise, however, that, to move forward, we must not forget about the past. There is much work that we still need to do to progress and address our history in Northern Ireland. I would like to see the sectarian demarcation of areas with flags, murals and banners that promote proscribed paramilitary organisations fully outlawed, with legislation to ensure that public bodies remove such material.

We have a legacy Act that was introduced against the will of the parties in Northern Ireland and overwhelmingly opposed by victims and survivors. The mechanisms in that Act do not put the needs of victims first and will not lead to a more reconciled society. I would like to see the Executive take forward proposals for a pension for those bereaved by the Troubles. We have seen many families fall between the cracks and be left disappointed that their trauma and pain have not been recognised by previous payment schemes.

Here and now, I recognise that work is being done in communities to promote cohesion and integration. In North Down, my constituency, I have seen at first hand some of the good work funded by the Communities in Transition project in Kilcooley and Rathgill; however, I would like to see those projects be a lot more flexible. Unfortunately, many in North Down will tell you that paramilitary activity is not limited to those two estates in Bangor. It is important that initiatives from the Executive reflect that.

As colleagues have said, it is important to recognise that our local communities are way ahead of politicians on this issue. The best examples of community cohesion and inclusive initiatives are more often than not driven by local people in their areas — provided by youth workers, women's centres and mental health initiatives on the ground.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will.

Does the Member agree that, if we were to address the cost of division, there would be more money for sustained services in the communities that she has just described?

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree, and there is a body of evidence to back up those claims.

To move towards a truly shared and integrated society, I want to see us go beyond the old narrative of two communities in Northern Ireland. We are an increasingly diverse place. It is important that equality and human rights issues are an essential part of a shared future. It is regrettable that more progress was not made on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland in the previous mandate. That could have been an important tool to enshrine rights for all and ensure that those who are marginalised are protected.

I want a shared future to mean a society in which everyone is welcome and free from discrimination. I am extremely concerned by the recent rise in hate crimes recorded by PSNI with race as the motivator. Addressing hate crime needs to be a factor in building a shared society and a united community. As I said, good relations should no longer be about the old narrative of two communities but for everybody in society. I would like to see that underpinned by a strategy for the integration of refugees into our society and full implementation of the racial equality strategy.

This matter affects our entire society, and there are many issues that I would like to speak about, but I am running out of time. Before I bring my remarks to a close, I will say that, when it comes to human rights and inclusion, it is also important that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities is incorporated into domestic law.

This debate is about creating a framework for a shared and united Northern Ireland, addressing our past to create a society in which everyone is equal and free from discrimination.

I support the motion, and I congratulate the Alliance Party on tabling it. It is a really important conversation, and, as Members have said, it is useful that we take stock of where we are in the North, as we are a post-colonial, post-conflict society. We have to acknowledge that sectarianism exists and that we will deal with it only if we have a conversation about it, so I totally support the motion.

Unity and unification are, obviously, fundamental to my politics; I am an Irish republican. We have just celebrated Easter, and at Easter we reflect on the words of the proclamation to the Irish people of 1916, which clearly stated that the Irish nation was for Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. That is the politics to which I align myself, the basis of my political activism and the reason why I am here in the Chamber.

We know that the costs of division are multiple, visceral, visible and tangible. They are very real. Unfortunately, in the past, people have paid the ultimate price because of division and sectarianism. We are not in that place any more, but we want to move very much away from it. Today's motion and this conversation are helpful in that, because we need to govern for everybody.

I note that Ms Egan referred to the bill of rights, on which we did a lot of work in the previous mandate. I chaired the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights, and it was regrettable that, at that point, the two unionist parties blocked the delivery of a bill of rights. I would like to see that —

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will.

What is the evidence that the Ulster Unionist Party was anything other than supportive? You will remember that I was Deputy Chair when you were Chair.

I thank the Member for his intervention.

The Member has an extra minute.

I refer the Member to a body of evidence on the Assembly website that clearly points to the meeting at which your colleague Alan Chambers provided a document and said that he did not believe that a bill of rights was necessary for the North. You can reflect on the Hansard report, which will show that clearly.

My point is that we have to govern for everybody, and ensuring rights for everybody is helpful. That is the space that we need to be in and the conversation that we need to have. The inclusion of everybody, regardless of their background, is important, as is acknowledging those differences and that we all have different lived experiences. As others have referred to, there has been a change in attitude during this mandate. That is welcome. When people participate in other people's cultures, embrace the fact that we all have differences and take the opportunity to enjoy things that we may not have been brought up with, it is a richer experience for everyone. Nobody is hurt by that. That needs to be perpetuated and built on during the mandate. I hope to see more of that. I congratulate the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their example of doing that thus far, because we need to see an end to segregation in our hearts and minds.

Other Members, particularly those from different parts of this city, have referred to the peace walls and the real divisions in their communities. As I have said before in the Chamber, I am from a farming family in the country. Where I come from, when a cow was sick during calving or somebody needed help with lambing a sheep, it did not matter what their background was. Nobody asked at the gate, "Where did you go on Sunday?". Everybody chipped in. That is still the situation at home. We need to see an increase in that and reflect on the fact that, although people may have different cultural practices, political beliefs and views about the constitutional position of the North of Ireland, that does not mean that they do not have the same worries and concerns. We all want to see the same thing for ourselves, our families, our friends and our constituents. We want to see people being able to have a full and proper life and to access healthcare. We all have the same struggles. At the end of the day, that is what life is about.

I congratulate the proposers of the motion. I hope to see it receive cross-party support. It is a good basis on which we can all work together for all the people whom we represent.

I have said before in the Chamber that I probably would not be here were it not for my community involvement, particularly in local sports clubs in Lagan Valley. I stand as a proud development officer of Glenavy GAC. I do not come from a GAA background, nor does my wife or any of her family. Before Matthew O'Toole left the Chamber, he talked about getting real, but I want to look at some of the things that happened around me and what it looks like when you do life together and change mindsets.

My late granny was called Sally. She was pretty loyal. She was from Ballysillan. She owned a chip shop on the Shankill Road, and, when I was young, she used to take me to the band parades. My granny moved to Bangor when she got older, and, at the end, she lived in the Fold. Her flat was full of plates of the royals and royal weddings. In case anybody did not realise what her beliefs were, she had a little Union Jack clock on her mantelpiece that ticked as loudly as she could speak. Everybody knew exactly where Sally came from. Sundays were a complete day of rest: you did nothing on a Sunday in her house. You did not wash the car or cut the grass; that was completely frowned upon.

When my son — her first great-grandson — was about seven or eight, he was playing in the Sunday Go games at our club, St Joseph's. We were to visit my granny on that afternoon. When he came home from the Go Games, I told him to get changed so that he would not cause her any offence. Unknown to me, he had simply thrown an Irish rugby hoodie over his GAA top. My granny was getting old, and her flat was really warm all the time, so, when we arrived there, Tim was too warm. He took off his fleece, and his GAA top was underneath: two sports, two Irish teams and a completely different reaction. My granny was 90-ish at the time, but, as quick as a flash, she saw the GAA logo. I remember seeing the speed at which her eyes locked on that badge. Here is the thing: this was her blue-eyed boy, and he was wearing a GAA shirt. I will never forget what happened and how that challenged her view and how her reaction was instantly different because this was her family and her great-grandson. I am not saying that her opinion completely changed or reversed, but her opposition certainly did, and her perception was completely challenged and was transformed. Her opinion was never going to be challenged by words, press releases, Photoshop images or Facebook posts or by a shared trip or visit somewhere where you do not know where anyone is from. What challenged her was her great-grandson living out a completely different way of life, uncomfortable, right up close and personal.

While photo opportunities are good for building confidence in this place — I am not dismissing that, because it is important that that happens — hard decisions are needed to help challenge, to integrate and to unite people.

I thank the Member for giving way. Your story about your grandmother brings me back to our code of conduct. As MLAs, we are supposed to promote good relations. The motion gives us an opportunity to show the public that, as an Assembly, we are coming together in a way that is conducive to promoting good relations by tackling prejudice, promoting understanding and respect and encouraging participation.

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank Kellie for her words.

If we want to live in a place that thrives and prospers and celebrates diversity for everyone on this small island, we need more than words and photographs. We need decisions that will build and bring our community together. Nor should we settle for second best or some sort of false pretence. We can never settle for dividing out or trying to pretend that dividing out is sharing. If we want to have a prosperous future, we need to share a model of confidence and integration that helps to bring people together so that they can do life together.

Twenty-six years after the Good Friday Agreement was signed, we need to make decisions to deliver prosperity. When I say prosperity, I do not mean money, wealth or foreign direct investment, although those are part of it. It is about starting to look at the man in the mirror, looking at ourselves and making decisions that provide opportunities that build on the work already being done across our community to change and challenge ourselves. We urgently need a strategic framework that will work to deliver a shared future and deliver on public-sector reform to tackle the cost of division while building on the good relations work that is already happening in our community. Talk and words are no longer anywhere near good enough.

I support the motion and commend those who tabled it. It has been a real privilege to listen to David's personal testimony, because that is where it all happens: it happens with love and with sharing our community. I also enjoyed the poem that Mike mentioned — I have just downloaded it. It is very good, and it teaches us all something about our humanity as well.

This is a timely and appropriate motion about one of the most pressing challenges facing our society, namely the unacceptable division that still separates our communities in Northern Ireland. When our peace agreement was finalised in 1998, it was done so in the hope of a better future for everyone here. That was the real and earnest desire of those who took part in the negotiations. Twenty-six years later, although that fragile peace has survived, I think that we can all agree that our society has not lived up to the vision of the peacebuilders from all those years ago.

It is, of course, right to say that there are increasing numbers of people from all backgrounds who are engaging in forms of sport and culture that were once thought of as being reserved for the so-called opposite community. That is to be welcomed, and, through a combination of natural integration and the fact that more and more people are simply fed up with division, many are living lives in our communities that would have seemed unimaginable just a few decades ago. The old divisions no longer hold as true as they once did, and we can all see that our society is changing around us. That includes the fact that we are home to an increasing number of new communities from around the world. That diversity is to be celebrated, and it is a sign of a Northern Ireland that now looks different from its past.

It is, however, also right to recognise that, in far too many of our communities and for far too many of our people, the scars of past and present division are still very clear. Reconciliation was never supposed to be an event that happened in 1998 but rather a process that was to continue throughout the years that followed. Despite the huge popular support for integration, we still know that it is not the reality on the ground. Lip service has been paid to integrated education, but, let us be honest, we are fooling nobody. Only 7% of our young people are enrolled in integrated schools. The vast majority of children still grow up without the opportunity to experience an environment that is unlike their own, and although integrated education should be high on the agenda, in practice, at least 10 of our integrated schools have lost their funding in the funding deal to restore these institutions.

More than 44% of people here say that relationships between Protestants and Catholics are about the same as they were five years ago, and 58% of people, from different religions, have said that they use different local services either a little or a lot of the time. Those failures of integration are the consequences of the failure to tackle properly divisions in our communities and in our society. Structural segregation is still the norm in far too many areas of our lives, and we know from research that the divided education system here alone costs £226 million every single year. Tackling those costs of division may be framed by some as another pressure on budgets that are already under huge pressure, but we must recognise that the kind of shared framework that the motion calls for is an investment in the future that we all want to see. We need to recognise that, every day, the running of parallel services in different communities costs our public purse. The cost of division is profound.

It is, however, also important to recognise the cost of division between the North and South of this island. Running parallel services between North and South also holds back our community and our economy. There are therefore two barriers, and the cost of division from them needs to be addressed. The first is the barrier between the people here in schools, in housing and in public services. The second is the barrier between the people, North and South, and they are not mutually exclusive. We can both reconcile our communities here and reconcile the people of this island.

Finally, although the motion calls for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to introduce the —

Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

— required strategic framework, breaking down the barriers of segregation and sectarianism is every Minister's responsibility.

That concludes the list of Members to speak. It is now my duty to call the deputy First Minister to respond. The deputy First Minister will have the allocated 15 minutes, but, hopefully, she will understand if I have to apologetically interrupt her for the start of Question Time at 2.00 pm.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to speak very quickly.

I am grateful to be afforded the opportunity to respond to the motion. First, I offer my apologies for being late for the beginning of the debate and for missing Ms Bradshaw's contribution. I was at the North/South Ministerial Council. We tried to get here as quickly as we could, but, unfortunately, we were late.

We should never underestimate or minimise the challenges involved in building a truly reconciled future, but I want to start on a positive note by recognising the incredible work that many thousands of organisations, people, workers, youth workers, churches, teachers and schools do in the area of building good relations. It really is incredible. I have had the huge privilege of getting out there and speaking to the many people who deliver those projects, sometimes on behalf of the Executive Office, on behalf of the Peace programmes or other external funds, or with a combination of funding from councils and Departments. It really is incredible. They are doing the work on the coal face, sometimes with the hardest to reach young people and communities, and really producing fabulous and fantastic results. I want to recognise that and recognise how far we have come, and I will get to some of the figures arising out of the key Together: Building a United Community actions.

This is an area that I am deeply passionate about. I worked in it for many years. As a special adviser, I had the great privilege of being the policy lead on good relations and had a key role in drafting and supporting the production of 'Together: Building a United Community'. In particular, working hand in hand with officials —

Will the Member give way?

I will in a moment.

Working hand in hand with officials, we were able to create the signature projects that have now been rolled out. The T:BUC strategy is under review, and we will, of course, be moving to develop it further.

I thank the deputy First Minister for giving way. Minister, do you agree that, while those programmes have been effective — my background is in community development as well, so I recognise the good work — the motion is about embedding good relations and a shared future in all our Departments, not just in a stand-alone programme in the Executive Office?

Absolutely, and T:BUC is not a stand-alone project. To make that absolutely clear, one of our signature projects, for example, was the removal of peace walls. That fell to DOJ, which, then, had an Alliance Minister. It was difficult, I have to say, to get the Department to take it on at that time. The point, which I made directly to the Minister at the time, is that good relations is not only an Executive Office — then OFMDFM — matter. The section 75 duty is on each and every one of us and all public bodies; it is not just a departmental matter. The section 75(2) duty is a separable one and a wide one, and it needs to be recognised by all our public bodies.

That said, division, poor relations and lack of acceptance and tolerance all bring costs to our society. They limit potential and hold us back from thriving as individuals and as a society. There are many issues in this space, however, on which we agree. We all want our children and young people to grow up safely and with equal opportunity to achieve their full potential. We want them to be free to embrace and express their own culture while being respectful and tolerant of the culture of others.

I am deeply proud of who I am. I always say that culture is not something that I do; it is something that I am. It is about going to the things that express my identity, enjoying the music and the traditions, learning about history and celebrating my identity. A sense of identity and cultural aspects enriches us as individuals, enriches our families and enriches our communities, and it should be celebrated. While I am deeply proud and confident of who I am, and I want to share that cultural identity with others, I also recognise that I ought to and must give that respect to others. It does not take away from who I am, what my identity is or what my heritage and history are to give that respect to others. Likewise, I demand that respect from others.

Those agreed principles formed the basis of the Together: Building a United Community strategy, also known as T:BUC, which was published in May 2013. It was significant that, as referenced by Sinéad McLaughlin, from 1998 and the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the institutions here had failed to produce a good relations strategy. It was very difficult to get consensus on that across the parties. In 2007, upon the restoration of the Assembly, there was a keenness from the Ministers in the then OFMDFM to get together and produce the first good relations strategy for Northern Ireland. We had the shared future strategy, and you will be aware that there were criticisms of it. I liked Mike Nesbitt's reference to the big human blender: there was a sense that everything would be thrown in and that what would come out would be beige, and that, in order to get on, we would need to strip away who we are and hide our identities. The Together: Building a United Community strategy marked a significant change in that regard: it contained a sense of respect for the celebration of those identities.

I am deeply proud of what we were able to achieve.

A Member:

Will the Minister give way?

I am very conscious of time. Unfortunately, Question Time is at 2.00 pm.

I am really proud of what the Together: Building a United Community strategy has achieved. I am not scared to say that, at times, I feel very emotional when I see the incredible benefit and change that it has brought about. Thirty thousand young people have taken part in more than 900 T:BUC camps. Look at how many of those young people have had robust and enduring relationships beyond that programme. That is the legacy of T:BUC.

Some Members said that just having photo ops and getting out there and sending out a positive message is not good enough. I absolutely agree that that is not good enough: we want to deliver. T:BUC has delivered. When I speak to young people about what I am proudest of in politics, I tell them that it is the work that I did in that area. It is about the lives that have been changed through that programme, and the resulting relationships and greater understanding across divides. I want us to get to the position where we no longer talk about friendships, relationships and understanding across the divide. We need to just talk about those friendships in a Northern Ireland where our differences are celebrated, and where they can be a strength. That is not something to be intimidated by: our cultural identities here should be celebrated and respected across all aspects, new and old.

Other achievements include the establishment of five Urban Villages areas; the building of 2,500 shared homes; 27,000 people taking part in the Uniting Communities programme of sport and creative events; and 7,800 young people participating in the United Youth programme. I could go on. Reference was made to the Limavady shared education campus. That was not a photo call about digging up some ground. It was a celebration of what has been achieved. I sat in that hall and saw young people who were so proud of who they are and their traditions, coming together and respecting each other. That is the very manifestation of what we, as an Executive, need to do, which is to deliver on building the brighter and united shared future that I know that we can have. It is not about denying who we are. It is about celebration through real actions, based on evidence, and making a meaningful change in people's lives.

I thank the deputy First Minister for that response and the timeliness of it. Members, the debate will resume after Question Time, with Kate Nicholl making her winding-up speech. Please take your ease. Question Time will begin shortly, after a change at the top Table.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker [Mr Poots] in the Chair)